Cover - Almost One Piece

Comments

I think that it is the lack of a carrying angle that gives the tight-muscled intestinal-distress look. In normal humanoids, there is a distinct angle from the broader pelvis to the narrow knees. This makes it possible to take consecutive steps in a straight line, something that is extremely difficult for our primate cousins. Presumably, makers of androids would wish for them to walk like humans.

Mine are robots, Not androids. There's a difference. However, I have no idea what you refer to, mine are fully articulate as can be seen from the joints. The body panels are rigid, though. Think suit of armour as apposed to polyflesh.

What is a "half-android"? do you mean a cyborg? Robot - think Terminator or better still, Honda's Asimo. Android - think West World 2017, or even Blade Runner. Cyborg - part human, part machine. Perhaps think Borg.

What is a "half-android"? do you mean a cyborg? Robot - think Terminator or better still, Honda's Asimo. Android - think West World 2017, or even Blade Runner. Cyborg - part human, part machine. Perhaps think Borg.

Half an android showing on the left and half an android showing on the right; half-android.

I think that it is the lack of a carrying angle that gives the tight-muscled intestinal-distress look. In normal humanoids, there is a distinct angle from the broader pelvis to the narrow knees. This makes it possible to take consecutive steps in a straight line, something that is extremely difficult for our primate cousins. Presumably, makers of androids would wish for them to walk like humans.

Mine are robots, Not androids. There's a difference. However, I have no idea what you refer to, mine are fully articulate as can be seen from the joints. The body panels are rigid, though. Think suit of armour as apposed to polyflesh.

I will try again.

Your robots are as wide at the knees as they are at the hips. They appear to be making fists that are clenched tightly beside their thighs. The knees appear to be flexed ever-so-slightly forward. In a human, this posture will only occur during periods of intestinal distress.

When looking at a robot, we tend to interpret its posture as we would when looking at a human. For example, Sphinx's androids appear to be at "parade rest" so we intuit that they are standing by and awaiting orders. This carries the subordinate concept of being under authority. Your robots, in contrast, appear to be desperately awaiting a loo.

And I think you appear to be doing your best at trying to be amusing. Mine are simply stereotypical robots as often depicted when the possibility of humanoid robots was first considered. You are thinking too much.

One could posit that when humanoid appearing robots [a.k.a. androids] were first considered many people were unaware of the psychology behind acceptance or rejection of such creations.

Consider a construct that somewhat resembles the human form, if the proportions and movement are more than a bit off people will fear and / or ridicule the android. This is part of why early attempts to create companions for people or replacements for workers were unsuccessful. Who would want a companion weighing several hundred pounds that would tower over them while inspiring fear? Add in jerky movement and the problem gets worse.

The Japanese companies working on android projects figured that part out. This is why there is a hotel in Japan where the majority of the staff are androids, mostly female in appearance. The female form was chosen due to both stature and appearance being less likely to be perceived as threatening. The other option is both less realistic while still being both cute and diminutive.

Androids are not the same as robots. I gave you examples of why that is a fact.

This is an Android. Note that it is not electro-mechanical.

is a Robot. Spot the difference?

It is common to get the two names mixed up, though.

were first considered many people were unaware of the psychology behind acceptance or rejection of such creations.

That's not relevant to these postings. Although it is being studied.

Consider a construct that somewhat resembles the human form, if the proportions and movement are more than a bit off people will fear and / or ridicule the android.

That's not true. I own a robot and people think it's amusing or annoying. Very few look like the Terminator.

This is part of why early attempts to create companions for people or replacements for workers were unsuccessful.

Early ones were unsuccessful because they were rubbish and expensive. Apart from the actual robots that have replaced workers in factories. And that started in the 1960s.

Who would want a companion weighing several hundred pounds that would tower over them while inspiring fear?

Why would anyone buy a robot that frightens them? But as I said, they cost too much for the common person to buy, and they were never mass produced or marketed, anyway. They are still too expensive for most people, even the ones that are not human sized.

Add in jerky movement and the problem gets worse.

Quite so, but you are talking about decades ago. One could say the same about the Model T Ford.

The Japanese companies working on android projects figured that part out.

You are still mixing the names up, regardless of me pointing out that there's a substantial difference. Just because a robot looks like a human does not mean it is constructed like an android.

This is why there is a hotel in Japan where the majority of the staff are androids, mostly female in appearance.

Not just there, but they are not androids and they don't have legs, or even useful arms. Even the rare one sat at a reception desk does not exist below the waist, and only her head and face moves. *The staff in hotels etc are often already female, anyway.

The female form was chosen due to both stature and appearance being less likely to be perceived as threatening.

Not as such. Read above. *

The other option is both less realistic while still being both cute and diminutive.

What other option? The majority of robots you can buy are androgynous, or do not even have body panels.

And I think you appear to be doing your best at trying to be amusing. Mine are simply stereotypical robots as often depicted when the possibility of humanoid robots was first considered. You are thinking too much.

Actually, no. I was merely explaining why they give that perception. You are not required to understand, but I do make every effort to make my writing as transparent as possible and thus I always work on being better understood.

There is no such thing as thinking too much; but I have often seen the opposite case.

‘Roboti’ derives from the Old Church Slavanic ‘rabota’, meaning ‘servitude’, which in turn comes from ‘rabu’, meaning ‘slave’. Whereas Android does not mean that. One does indeed find this > Word Origin and History for android. n. "automaton resembling a human being," 1842, from Modern Latin androides (itself attested as a Latin word in English from 1727), from Greek andro- "human" (see andro-) + eides "form, shape."

However in many definitions it also includes golems, which are not robots at all. They are mythical magic.

But I think you are missing my point. If you look for people and companies who make robots or robotics, not one calls themselves a maker of androids.

In SF (because androids do not as yet exist, (man made biological creature)) a robot is an electro-mechanical device, at times in the shape of a human. An android is not an electro-mechanical creature. The latter so far only exist in SF.

This is a potential android muscle.

This is mechanics >

What I am saying is that due to advancement of science, there has to be and is, a differential between the words Robot and Android. One cannot describe a flesh heart created by man from stem cells mechanical.

I feel sure that on your home planet you are the final authority on everything -- the problem being this is planet Earth, or Terra if you prefer, orbiting a G2V type star at times named Sol though most commonly referred to as the Sun.

Not sure what you mean by "Terra if you prefer". And most of the stars in the sky are suns, so one does have to differentiate when it comes to what ours is often called. Hence Solarpanels etc I suspect.